Navigate:

Greens not friendless among House GOP

Dozens of purple-state Republicans have broken ranks to take the pro-green position. | AP Photos
Close

Rep. Steve LaTourette of Ohio this year clashed with Speaker John Boehner over a union-related provision on Federal Aviation Administration reauthorization. He's also voted in favor of funding National Public Radio and allowing the Interior Department to put a moratorium on uranium mining around the Grand Canyon.

"I can't be guided by that," he said of a possible tea party primary challenge. "I've got to vote. I've done it for 18 years. I'm going to continue to do it. People like the way I vote. People don't like the way I vote. That's just the way it is."

Text Size

-

+

reset

Republican pro-environment votes are coming in all shapes and sizes.

Rep. Fred Upton, once known as a moderate on green issues, has taken the party line since his successful run for the chairmanship of the Energy and Commerce Committee. But the Michigan Republican surprised many when he voted with Democrats to preserve the Endangered Species Act. Also voting with Democrats was Rep. Ed Whitfield of Kentucky, the chairman of the Energy and Power Subcommittee and the shepherd for many of the anti-EPA bills that have environmentalists on high alert.

Democratic leaders aren’t giving the Republican defectors that much credit. Reps. Henry Waxman of California and Ed Markey of Massachussets last month dubbed their colleagues "the most anti-environment House in the history of Congress."

"So far this year, the House has voted 110 times to undermine the protection of the environment," the Democratic lawmakers said in a report that found 97 percent of Republicans took an anti-environment position compared with 84 percent of Democrats who voted in the other direction.

On the biggest of bills, Republicans have stuck together. There were no defectors when they voted in January to repeal the health care law. Also, stand-alone legislation removing the EPA's authority to regulate greenhouse gases won support from every GOP member present, though an aide to Rep. Rodney Frelinghuysen of New Jersey later said he would have voted against the bill if he had not been on leave recovering from hip surgery.

"I could find a reason to vote against every single bill that comes through here," said Rep. Mike Simpson (R-Idaho), the chairman of the Interior and environment appropriations subcommittee. "What you have to do is look at it in balance and say is it good for the country or is it bad for the country. And every bill is a compromise. Some people, their compromising standards are way low. They're unwilling to do it at all."

Jenkins said he's been baffled by the randomness of the roll calls. For example, he counted 20 to 30 more Republicans who wanted to vote against killing tougher efficiency standards for incandescent light bulbs. Ten GOP lawmakers did vote against the repeal.

"There's not a lot of consistency," Jenkins said. "They're feeling tugged in so many different directions, trying to give every constituency a little something they should like. But it produces an incoherent policy when it comes to energy and the environment that you can't make heads or tails of."

Rep. Jason Chaffetz frequently votes against his party leadership, though not on environmental issues. But the Utah Republican said he doesn't agree with Boehlert's complaint that there are too few GOP greens. "It sounds like we're making some improvements around here," he said.

This article first appeared on POLITICO Pro at 5:41 a.m. on August 4, 2011.

Readers' Comments (44)

What science are these people talking about.Science is all over the place on greens.If they don't have the guts to back conservative views because they are wobbly then say so.Oh Nan their aint no objective science.Shut down the epa and noaa.we don't need them.Also shut down Nan Hayworth

What of course will never happen is the holy grain of the environmental movement, a carbon tax. At least not without Liberals embracing the LMAD plan.

These two rhetorical questions hold the key to a carbon tax:

1) If the solution to too much CO2 in the air is to use less fossil fuels, why is NOT the solution to too much federal debt to use less government?

2) If the optimal amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is 350 ppm (current=389 ppm) because that is the maximum concentration of CO2 in our atmosphere under which life as we know it can continue, why is 18% of GDP (current =25% GDP) NOT the optimal of the federal government since that is the that most likely yields maximum economic growth?

So it’s time for Liberals concerned about rising global temperatures and Conservatives concerned about rising federal debt to realize the obvious: they need to BUY each other off in order to effectively address their pet ideological concerns—there is no other way. It’s just too easy for Washington political adversaries to thwart the other side’s priorities. “Buying each other off” means trading, among other things, a carbon tax and fully-funded healthcare for all for a balanced budget amendment and an enforceable limit on the of government.

Buying each other off has worked before. In 1790, during George Washington’s first term, two separate issues arose that nearly destroyed the newly united country. The first issue was the huge revolutionary war debt held by the states and how to pay if off. The second issue was the location of the nation’s capital.

Alexander Hamilton, Washington’s Treasury Secretary, wanted the new federal government to assume the state’s war debt and refinance it. The states objected because they saw Hamilton’s plan as a gambit to increase the and power of the federal government over the states as well as a windfall to rich northern bankers.

Thomas Jefferson, a Virginian, wanted the new federal capital located in the South to counter northern political strength. This incensed Northerners who believe that the political capital should be seated in the financial capital of the country and that was clearly up north in cities like New York or Boston.

So what did Hamilton and Jefferson do? They bought each other off. Jefferson agreed to support Hamilton’s debt plan and Hamilton agreed to place the capital in Washington, DC.

Today’s equivalent of that historical agreement is the Let’s Make A Deal plan (LMAD for short). LMAD BUYS OFF Liberals with much more than just a $600 billion carbon tax. It also adds fully-funded Healthcare for every American, a public option health insurance entity, and the implementation of tax schemes frequently advocated by Liberals such as a “sugar” tax and a value-added tax. The LMAD plan even grants overnight amnesty of 10 million illegal aliens.

LMAD buys off Conservatives with much more than a balanced budget and limited government ; it permanently ends future illegal immigration, adds tort reform and completely replaces all taxes on production, labor, saving and investment with the new carbon tax, the value-added tax and the sugar tax. The LMAD plan even removes the burden of healthcare expenses from corporate balance sheets by ending our reliance on employer-provided health insurance.

Liberals can breathe easier knowing that global warming is finally being addressed, that every American has adequate healthcare and that consumption and that waste and affluence are appropriately taxed. Conservatives can fire their guns in the air over the knowledge that the budget is balanced, the of government is held in check, and those anti-growth taxes and business-borne healthcare costs that are killing American exports and penalizing work, savings and investment are forever ended.

Both sides will appreciate that the LMAD deal is a potent GDP-growth accelerant that puts the United States firmly in the China/India economic growth league. The country will be transformed from a debt-ridden, gluttonous net-importer afflicted with high structural unemployment, unaffordable healthcare costs and scant economic prospects to a lean, efficient, export juggernaut that creates millions of new, higher-income jobs and hosts an increasing number of world class companies that choose to relocate to the only country on the planet that doesn’t tax production or labor. With healthcare costs finally contained and economic growth unleashed, Medicare and Social Security will be made solvent without the need to impose politically painful benefit cuts.

Let's Make A Deal: A Hail Mary Pass to Get America Off the Bench and Back in the Game

Healthcare-for-All? It’s in there. Balanced budget? It’s in there. Carbon tax? It’s in there. Rational taxation? Amnesty? Border Security? Limited government? Social Security and Medicare solvency? It’s all in there; it’s all paid for and it’s all scalable and optimized for economic growth.

Anyone that voted against ever adding new species to the endangered species list when their numbers are extremely low don't deserve to live in our beautiful country. Being a conservationist and caring out clean air, clean water and species survival isn't a party issue, it's a human issue. There are tons of Republicans that farm, fish, hunt, have kids, etc. and want clean air, water and safe environment for current and future generations. The crazies that talk about getting rid of the EPA and the Endangered Species Act are truly out of step with most Americans, especially Americans that live in small towns that heavily depend on nature for their incomes, food source, and entertainment.

Since the economy is in the tank already, why not let the EPA impose any regulations it wants? It will take years to recover from the George Bush recession, and a few more weeks or months due to the fact of the corporations having to do more for clean air and water won't make a difference, especially if unemployment benefits are extended, as they should be.

Good to see that there is still some sanity in today's Tea Party driven GOP. Unfortunately the majority of Republican polititicans sound like they get their scientific misinformation from Rush Limbaugh, who, despite evidence to the contrary insists that global warming is just a big hoax.

1) If the solution to too much CO2 in the air is to use less fossil fuels, why is NOT the solution to too much federal debt to use less government?

2) If the optimal amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is 350 ppm (current=389 ppm) because that is the maximum concentration of CO2 in our atmosphere under which life as we know it can continue, why is 18% of GDP (current =25% GDP) NOT the optimal of the federal government since that is the that most likely yields maximum economic growth?

As to Sanity, I would be interested to hear more about Nasa's report on global warming that shows that the basic assumptions (which is what they are) of most of the left are incorrect. From space they determined that that the clouds and pollution were not doing the things that liberals said they were and in fact were doing pretty much exactly what they should do with very little effect on the temperatures. I am not opposed to clean water or air, but I am opposed to the liberal view that raking in my money in order to pay for things they want is the way to go. The way to go is to have the market develop things that people are willing to buy, not be forced to buy. Then forget the redistribution plans, otherwise it is strictly a political agenda and in no way tied to real concern for the planet. Global warming is the new socialist way of gaining the upper hand in the decisions made over the objections of the public.

As to Sanity, I would be interested to hear more about Nasa's report on global warming that shows that the basic assumptions (which is what they are) of most of the left are incorrect. From space they determined that that the clouds and pollution were not doing the things that liberals said they were and in fact were doing pretty much exactly what they should do with very little effect on the temperatures. I am not opposed to clean water or air, but I am opposed to the liberal view that raking in my money in order to pay for things they want is the way to go. The way to go is to have the market develop things that people are willing to buy, not be forced to buy. Then forget the redistribution plans, otherwise it is strictly a political agenda and in no way tied to real concern for the planet. Global warming is the new socialist way of gaining the upper hand in the decisions made over the objections of the public.

Uh, you mean the NASA study that found that the previous decade was the warmest in history:

We're watching voting records very carefully and there wil be conservative primary challengers ready to run thses RINOS off. The greens have done their best to ruin America, but have failed at this point to complete their mission. As soon as we dump Obama in 2012 we'll clean all the greens out the EPA and the Department of Interior and bring some sanity back.

During the 20th century in addition to historically being an era in which the earth is recovering from the last Ice Age 11,000 years ago it was a time of high solar activity or a Solar Maximum. This period between Ice Ages is an interglacial period. Today's interglacial period is called the Holocene. Evidence of this recovery and the great extent of Ice Ages is interestingly shown by the fact that the surface of the earth is still rebounding in the area of the Great Lakes from the weight of the tremendous ice mass that covered that area. We are actually at a below average global temperature while recovering from the latest Ice Age. all

You are comparing apples and oranges. Actually, comparing the federal debt and CO2 has even less validity than comparing apples and oranges. At least both of these are fruit. Your post shows you need to brush up on logical thinking. What a surprise that a con is deficient in logical thinking.